The Iraq Inquiry’s report into the 2003 invasion and its aftermath will “not be a cover-up in any shape or form,” said the UK’s top civil servant. The report, whose publication date remains unknown, will be “more transparent” than expected, he claimed.

Appearing before the House of Commons Public Administration
Select Committee, Sir Jeremy Haywood told MPs the Chilcot Inquiry
report would include sensitive material that would not usually be
disclosed “in a million years.”

During his questioning, he sought to dispel concerns that the
substance of the report, launched in 2009, was being diluted in
the course of its lengthy delay. Public hearings were completed
in 2011, and it was hoped the details would be delivered the same
year.

“There has been a delay of sorts as we processed tens of
thousands of requests for declassification of very complicated
and sensitive documents,” Haywood told the committee.

“I don’t think that has held up the inquiry. It is a very
difficult thing. The controversy around this continues today. It
is very important that the whole story is told,” he said.

“So we have tried our level best to break through normal
conventions and the legal requirements and the international
relations and the nine different categories that the original
protocols suggested might be a reason for not publishing
material,” Haywood said. “We have had to work through
all of that in good faith as fast as we possibly can to try and
make sure the whole story is laid bare.”

Of particular concern to those investigating the transparency of
the inquiry are records of meetings and exchanges between then-US
President George W. Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The issue concerned 25 “notes,” more than 130 records of
conversations between the two leaders, and some 200 Cabinet-level
discussions. The US reportedly opposed the publication of
classified material concerning the president.

It emerged in May that the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Defence
had blocked the release of these records. It has since been
confirmed that large proportions will be omitted from the final
report.

Following an agreement, the inquiry is expected to publish
“gists” and selected quotes from their exchanges, rather
than full transcripts or notes of talks.

At the start of the Iraq Inquiry, then-Prime Minister Gordon
Brown emphasized “no British document and no British witness
will be beyond the scope of the inquiry” unless it is
“essential to our national security.”

But the omission of potentially crucial Bush-Blair records calls
into question the “legitimacy of the investigation” and
reinforces a “culture of opacity in defence and security
services,” according to Jameela Raymond, a defence and
security expert at Transparency International UK.

During Haywood’s questioning, Select Committee member Paul Flynn
MP said the families of the 147 UK service personnel killed in
Iraq deserved better and said it was vital the full truth was
known to avoid similar “terrible mistakes” occurring
again.

“We can't excuse this just because of protocol and
delays,” Flynn said. “We have had four years of delay
which has helped only those who want to hide the truth.”

Defending the progress and the transparency of the report,
Haywood said it would be a “very full account.”

“I am absolutely confident that the finished report will be
as transparent as it needs to be... I have spent many personal
hours and months trying to maximize the extent to which [inquiry
chairman Sir John Chilcot] can publish this material that
normally would not be published in a million years.

“I can understand people’s frustration but I think the
report... will be more transparent than you are expecting and I
don't think in any shape or form it can be called a
cover-up.”

Critics of the war say Blair deliberately misled the public over
the reason for sending 45,000 British troops to invade Iraq, on
the basis of removing Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass
destruction. No such weapons were ever found.